get_webhook

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only. While 'Get details' implies a read operation, it lacks confirmation and additional context, leaving gaps in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, but the 'Returns' part could be more concise by integrating it into the main sentence. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks details on return values (only mentions 'including URL, events, and status' without full structure) and behavioral aspects. For a tool with no structured support, it should provide more comprehensive guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'repo_slug' is a 'Repository slug' and 'webhook_uuid' is a 'Webhook UUID (from list_webhooks)', providing context and source for the UUID. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it could detail format constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details about a specific webhook.' It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('a specific webhook'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_webhooks' beyond mentioning the UUID source, missing full sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by noting that the 'webhook_uuid' comes from 'list_webhooks', suggesting a workflow. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_webhooks' for multiple webhooks or other get_* tools), leaving some ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.